25% Tariff being put on all imported cars like the CTR

[raptor718]

your president

The reason I ask is because some car manufacturer's, like BMW, have officially announced a smaller percentage increase and will not pass the entire tariff over to the consumers. I thought you had real information from Honda. Nothing to see here then...

Sponsored

 

[egxflash]

The reason I ask is because some car manufacturer's, like BMW, have officially announced a smaller percentage increase and will not pass the entire tariff over to the consumers. I thought you had real information from Honda. Nothing to see here then...

Right. The increase in price isn't necessarily the same as the tariff since the company's inputs can share some of that via lower vendor pricing.

 

[Websitesdown]

I apologize in advance for feeding the ChatGPT troll...



Vietnam is a tiny player that's making decisions based on their limited economic power. We, as the shitty bully, have forced them to do what we want. Does that make you proud of our country? We've lost any good will they had with us in future partnerships. This wasn't done with any initial negotiations beforehand, it was just a blanket policy that was thrown out there without any nuance and customization to each relationship. You can be sure next time we have to do something like send special operations forces on a mission in that area, they won't give us permission to cross their territory or use their land for any kind of forward base. We've burned that bridge.



You hand-wave consumer pain as if it's no big deal. It's a really huge deal to the millions who are worse off than you. On this forum we are fortunate enough to afford a CTR. Millions of people aren't in that situation despite many of them working very hard. The cost of living going up due these trade wars makes a gigantic downgrade on their day to day life. You say it's short term but what's short to you is a super long time if you're choosing between rent and food for your kids.



...I can't believe I'm bothering to argue with this AI slop...

You acknowledge all the stronger nations in the world can and will fight back against us. You have this us versus them mentality. That they can be crushed. This is how you lose influence and power in the world. What is happening is other countries are realizing that we cannot be trusted. They can't trust our weapons like the F-35 or anything else of ours because that becomes a leverage point we can use against them. We may suddenly stop selling shells for artillery. No more spare parts for the planes and tanks we sold to them. Now that they know better they'll build up their own capabilities and in the end, we've only isolated ourselves economically and lost hundreds of billions in defense contract business. Lockheed Martin certainly doesn't want trade barriers.



Getting manufacturing back into the country doesn't need to be through the destruction of big and small businesses and farms all over the nation. It can be done through incentives and investments. For example, the Chips and Science Act did this through tax incentives and subsidies to create factories locally. This is the way to do it constructively and helps our home grown businesses. To quote Wikipedia, "By March 2024, analysts estimated that the [Chips and Science] act incentivized between 25 and 50 separate potential projects, with total projected investments of $160–200 billion and 25,000–45,000 new jobs."

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act



This paragraph makes it so clear that ChatGPT wrote it and the previous post was fed in as input. ChatGPT can argue disruption is the point, but tell that to the people who will suffer from job losses and increased cost of living on a daily basis. They'll give you an earful and rightly so.



These last two paragraphs aren't really worth replying about.

Vietnam’s limited economic power makes it vulnerable to U.S. pressure, and that’s a feature, not a bug. Logically: if the U.S. can dictate terms to smaller players, it secures immediate compliance—say, on trade or security—without the mess of drawn-out negotiations. Goodwill is nice, but it’s not a contract; Vietnam might deny special forces access anyway if their interests shift. By flexing muscle now, the U.S. signals strength to the region, deterring others (like China) from filling the vacuum. The bridge isn’t burned—it’s just toll-gated. Vietnam will still cooperate when it’s in their interest, and they’ll think twice before crossing a proven enforcer.

Yes, tariffs raise costs, and some families feel the pinch—rent versus food isn’t abstract. But logic demands perspective: short-term pain is the price of long-term gain. If trade wars force manufacturing back to the U.S., jobs follow—millions of them, potentially lifting those same struggling families out of poverty. The counterclaim that transitions take too long ignores history: post-WWII industrial booms took years, yet paid off for decades. Millions on forums like this might afford a CTR, but millions more could afford homes if domestic industry rebounds. The pain’s real; the payoff’s bigger.

Allies grumbling about F-35 parts or artillery shells miss the point: dependence on U.S. weapons is why we lead. Logically: if nations can’t trust our supply chain, they’re still stuck—they’ve built their militaries around our tech. South Korea or Poland won’t pivot to Russia overnight; the sunk costs are too high. Meanwhile, the threat of cutting spares keeps them in line on trade or geopolitics. Trust isn’t the goal—control is. If they build their own capabilities, fine; they’ll never match U.S. scale or innovation. Lockheed Martin’s profits might dip, but American power holds firm.

The Chips and Science Act’s $160–200 billion and 25,000–45,000 jobs sound impressive, but it’s slow and selective—chip factories won’t revive steel or textiles. Logical contrast: tariffs and trade wars hit broad and hard, forcing companies to relocate or die. Incentives coax; disruption demands. If farms and small businesses collapse, that’s creative destruction—new industries rise in their place. The Act proves subsidies work for niche sectors, but only blanket pressure reshapes an economy. Speed matters: waiting on tax breaks risks losing ground to rivals like China.

U.S. coercion of Vietnam, tolerance of consumer pain, leverage over allies, and disruptive trade policies aren’t flaws—they’re calculated moves. They trade soft power for hard results: compliance, jobs, dominance, and a rebooted industrial base. Incentives like the Chips Act are too timid for the scale of the challenge. Logically, a nation doesn’t win by playing nice—it wins by playing tough.

Also, this is direct from the Whitehouse as of today. That way you can see what we're pushing back on that other countries are currently doing to us.

The White House on X: "LIBERATION DAY RECIPROCAL TARIFFS https://t.co/ODckbUWKvO" / X

Thanks for a good argument minus you attacking me like your fellow liberals have been but, good none the less.

 

[Tougefl5]

Also, I've said my piece a few times in this thread, and the counter arguments don't really seem engaging with at this point so I'm going to bow out of the thread.

Later all.

These folks getting on your ass for using ChatGPT.
I've got to admit it got a 2 paragraph response from me and that's longer than it would normally get.
That's really funny

 

[Cueyo]

in an effort to get this thread back on track... lol

Do we think this is the nail in the coffin for the '26 FL5 being the last year?

Yes, I firmly think it's not worth it for Honda, unless they can somehow get around the small profit margin fl5s already had

 

[J_D]

South Korea or Poland won’t pivot to Russia overnight; the sunk costs are too high.

The notion that South Korea or Poland would pivot to Russia for any reason is nonsensical.

 

[Websitesdown]

I just saw a funny meme and wanted to share it with you guys to lighten the mood a little.

 

[Tickle]

Vietnam’s limited economic power makes it vulnerable to U.S. pressure, and that’s a feature, not a bug. Logically: if the U.S. can dictate terms to smaller players, it secures immediate compliance—say, on trade or security—without the mess of drawn-out negotiations. Goodwill is nice, but it’s not a contract; Vietnam might deny special forces access anyway if their interests shift. By flexing muscle now, the U.S. signals strength to the region, deterring others (like China) from filling the vacuum. The bridge isn’t burned—it’s just toll-gated. Vietnam will still cooperate when it’s in their interest, and they’ll think twice before crossing a proven enforcer.

Yes, tariffs raise costs, and some families feel the pinch—rent versus food isn’t abstract. But logic demands perspective: short-term pain is the price of long-term gain. If trade wars force manufacturing back to the U.S., jobs follow—millions of them, potentially lifting those same struggling families out of poverty. The counterclaim that transitions take too long ignores history: post-WWII industrial booms took years, yet paid off for decades. Millions on forums like this might afford a CTR, but millions more could afford homes if domestic industry rebounds. The pain’s real; the payoff’s bigger.

Allies grumbling about F-35 parts or artillery shells miss the point: dependence on U.S. weapons is why we lead. Logically: if nations can’t trust our supply chain, they’re still stuck—they’ve built their militaries around our tech. South Korea or Poland won’t pivot to Russia overnight; the sunk costs are too high. Meanwhile, the threat of cutting spares keeps them in line on trade or geopolitics. Trust isn’t the goal—control is. If they build their own capabilities, fine; they’ll never match U.S. scale or innovation. Lockheed Martin’s profits might dip, but American power holds firm.

The Chips and Science Act’s $160–200 billion and 25,000–45,000 jobs sound impressive, but it’s slow and selective—chip factories won’t revive steel or textiles. Logical contrast: tariffs and trade wars hit broad and hard, forcing companies to relocate or die. Incentives coax; disruption demands. If farms and small businesses collapse, that’s creative destruction—new industries rise in their place. The Act proves subsidies work for niche sectors, but only blanket pressure reshapes an economy. Speed matters: waiting on tax breaks risks losing ground to rivals like China.

U.S. coercion of Vietnam, tolerance of consumer pain, leverage over allies, and disruptive trade policies aren’t flaws—they’re calculated moves. They trade soft power for hard results: compliance, jobs, dominance, and a rebooted industrial base. Incentives like the Chips Act are too timid for the scale of the challenge. Logically, a nation doesn’t win by playing nice—it wins by playing tough.

Also, this is direct from the Whitehouse as of today. That way you can see what we're pushing back on that other countries are currently doing to us.

The White House on X: "LIBERATION DAY RECIPROCAL TARIFFS https://t.co/ODckbUWKvO" / X

Thanks for a good argument minus you attacking me like your fellow liberals have been but, good none the less.

Opposing views will happen and biases will show. We all come from different paths...

What we all seem to agree on is that this will cost a significant percentage of people who already have limited resources to spare or perhaps none at all.

I know that many, simply do not care about that. I do.

America voted for this and I hope it works... I would rather be wrong and everything improved for the majority...

 

[J_D]

Y'all see that nice grid with the tariffs that other countries are imposing on the U.S, and the reciprocal tariffs the U.S is imposing now?


Turns out the tariff on the U.S column isn't real. It's just the imports to the U.S divided by exports from the U.S

 

[Ic@ns33urhrt]

Your Lips must be tired from sucking on Trumps teet!

 

[Tougefl5]

This is awesome

 

[TypeRD]

Right. The increase in price isn't necessarily the same as the tariff since the company's inputs can share some of that via lower vendor pricing.

Correct. Corporations can do things behind the curtain (like spread the costs to other products, reduce operating costs, hit up their parts vendors, find new parts vendors, forfeit bonuses, etc. etc.) to ease the price increase that consumers see. Why would they do that? Well…because they know that no one, even the well-off, will gladly pony up 25% more for a vehicle even if they can afford it. Of course the uber wealthy will pay whatever. It’s of no consequence to them. But those few people can’t keep an entire country’s auto industry alive…unless buying fleets of Nissan Altimas is something they do for fun.

 

[Navy619]

I read something about Japan discontinuing the FL5 due to emissions and noise regulations.

 

[Integra23]

I would have never guessed Civic owners would be so opinionated

Sponsored